Author Topic: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?  (Read 44146 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2947
  • Darwins +180/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #348 on: May 22, 2013, 07:54:49 PM »

Because a place of eternal punsihment and torment that is as terrible as you describe is entirely disproportionate to any crime or sin that may be committed in a finite earthly life.  Some punishment?  Maybe.  Depends on the crime.  But unremitting torment for ever?  No sir - no loving god could ever create such a place or deem it necessary or appropriate.

You can certainly hold that opinion, and it's one I can sympathise with because I, like you, am only able to understand crime and punishment within the context of this world.

I am certain that the problem lies with our inability to understand God and His absolute right to judge His creation.

And as always, God's salvation is ignored. Hell awaits all who have refused God's salvation.

Imagine standing at the edge of an abyss, with the ground around you giving way. You need to cross that abyss. There is only one way, a very narrow bridge. Why this stupid narrow bridge?, you think. Why isn't there a gold plated travelator? Why does this abyss even exist? Stuff it. I'd rather go into the abyss, content in my own superior reasoning.

You might have a whole list of reasons why you think God is wrong and you are right, but you won't get much comfort from them. In fact, I believe you'll get no comfort from them, because when the time comes you'll know you were wrong.

Bottom line: you firmly believe that the things you do which you know are wrong do not need to be accounted for. You have been told, repeatedly, that they do need to be accounted for, and will be. With Jesus, they have been. You reject that. That is your choice. It's my choice to heed that, because I know in my heart that God exists, and He has the right to punish wrongdoing as He pleases. Non-communicable, yes. (my belief). But I've said that over and over.


Especially when you examine the criteria for going there, which in the broad is "not accepting Christ". 

A typical abdication of responsibility, and a dismissal of the idea that it is your wrongdoing and rebellion against God that made Christ's death necessary. Mocking Christ, denying Christ even existed.


I would have no problem in accepting Christ.  He sounds like a generally OK dude, telling people to be nice to one another and not be so mean.  I can get behind that, sure.  But not because Christ said it, but because I think its a good way to be.  The problem is that I can't accept Christ because I simply don't believe he exists, don't believe your god exists. 

Well, it comes down to the truth of that, really. If you truly never believed God or turned against Him, you have nothing to worry about.


In most threads, the belief eventually comes down to "I had a personal experience, and so I believed" - making the belief something out of the control of the person experiencing it.  And that's the problem I have with hell - that because I was not given this personal experience, I will be tormented forever for something out of my control.....and there is NO way I can square that with a necessary and terrible hell.

As per above.


Further, those personal experiences fly in the face of any kind of "belief without proof", of any kind of faith.  For true faith to exist, you would have to have that faith, keep that faith, in a life entirely bereft of any feeling of connection, any feeling of relationship, any "awareness" of that god.  Because although I wouldn't accept your personal experience as evidence for ME to believe, I accept that it is evidence for YOU.  Sufficient evidence for you to be convinced of the actuality of your god.

And therein lies the problem.  Some people HAVE enough evidence for their god.....but many others don't.  Yet when I ask "why not?", when I ask why god doesn't simply reveal himself to everyone and make it clear that he exists, the response is invariably "because then you wouldn't have faith, you would KNOW".  Well, so far as I can see, all the experiences you have had mean that you DO "know".  You have long gone past faith without any evidence, and are operating from a position of knowledge: knowledge that you cannot share with anyone else, sure, but nonetheless you are certain there is a god.  You don't believe, you know....and hence remove any validity for that god not granting that knowledge to every human on the planet, and hence removing the possibility of hell for unbelief.

So no - I cannot conceive of any reason why a loving god who wants us to be saved would ever have the need to create and eternal, terrible, necessary hell.

Same response again. Only you can know what you truly know. And God.
Go on up you baldhead.

Offline HAL

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5014
  • Darwins +98/-17
  • Gender: Male
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #349 on: May 22, 2013, 07:58:51 PM »
Magicmiles - sounds like you've been reading too much of Junebug's ramblings.

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2947
  • Darwins +180/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #350 on: May 22, 2013, 08:05:19 PM »
Yep, anyone reading my posts will see a massive shift in perspective since she has been a member. &)
Go on up you baldhead.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6680
  • Darwins +888/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #351 on: May 22, 2013, 08:11:54 PM »
If I don't believe in any gods because the evidence is so lame, how is that "turning my back on god"? I used to believe in god because I had never really examined the evidence. I just believed what I was taught. Once I started thinking about what I was taught, the belief fell apart like a meat pie under a fork.

I could not make myself believe in the supernatural now anymore than I could believe that Australia is kept from sinking into the sea by tiny pink striped elephants. Without any evidence that tiny pink striped elephants even exist, would anyone buy such a silly idea?

MM, why have you turned away from the tiny pink striped elephants that are responsible for your very survival? You realize that the TPSE will not be well pleased to discover your disbelieving ways.... &)
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2947
  • Darwins +180/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #352 on: May 22, 2013, 08:18:49 PM »
I am confident that the elephants you speak of are imaginary. Like, really confident. I doubt I'll ever give them another thought, not even if Tasmania suddenly sunk with a mysterious trumpeting sound.
Go on up you baldhead.

Offline jynnan tonnix

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1780
  • Darwins +88/-1
  • Gender: Female
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #353 on: May 22, 2013, 08:52:53 PM »
I am confident that the elephants you speak of are imaginary. Like, really confident. I doubt I'll ever give them another thought, not even if Tasmania suddenly sunk with a mysterious trumpeting sound.

You see, though, MM, that's precisely the point. Imagine having been brought up to believe in those elephants. Imagine your parents, your friends, the majority of people in your circle as devout believers.

Then one day, you look around yourself and realize it just doesn't add up.

Can you will yourself to regain the belief?

And if these elephants do, in fact, exist, is it really the only possible just response for them to cast you into eternal torment for coming to the conclusion you did?

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2947
  • Darwins +180/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #354 on: May 22, 2013, 09:18:28 PM »
It's the constant two-step rebuttal that I find compelling - " I don't beleieve, but if God did exists he would/should/ wouldn't/shouldn't etc etc.

If the focus and passion of this forum was solely, or even pre-dominately on God's existence rather than the implications of His existence, I'd probably be far less active.
Go on up you baldhead.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12278
  • Darwins +272/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #355 on: May 22, 2013, 09:32:04 PM »
The implications of something's hypothetical existence are how you can tell whether or not it exists.  That's what "evidence" is.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline JeffPT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2061
  • Darwins +221/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm a lead farmer mutha fucka
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #356 on: May 22, 2013, 10:06:15 PM »
It's the constant two-step rebuttal that I find compelling - " I don't beleieve, but if God did exists he would/should/ wouldn't/shouldn't etc etc.

If the focus and passion of this forum was solely, or even pre-dominately on God's existence rather than the implications of His existence, I'd probably be far less active.
If all we ever did was say, "No MM, stop being a moron. God isn't real," to everything you said, the conversation would be at an end in just a few posts. We are forced to step into the belief in order to show you how stupid it is from the inside.  Why do you think we are so knowledgeable about the bible and religion?  You have to know what you're arguing against.

Your religion is simply a theological position that you find compelling because it's what you were brainwashed to believe. But that position has effectively turned off your reasoning capacity when it comes to questioning it.  How do I know that?  Because you treat the evidence against Gods goodness very differently than you treat the evidence against the goodness of everything else. Need an example? 

Everyone you know says Bill is the greatest guy they have ever met. You meet Bill and the first thing he does is punch you in the balls.  Is Bill the greatest guy?

Everyone you know says God is the greatest being ever. You see children dying in a cancer ward. Is God the greatest being ever?

If you rationalize it away for God and not Bill, then you prove my point. God can opt not to give children cancer, in much the same way that Bill can opt to not punch you in the balls.  Yet we have cancer in kids. Any reasoning you can come up with to explain that in a universe with a benevolent, omnipotent, being fails miserably against the alternative; that there is simply no benevolent, omnipotent being. 

For you, God is good nobody can tell you otherwise. If he exists (again, forced to qualify that), then He metaphorically punches millions of people in the balls every day. Yet you still say he's good.

The Christian God is not real.  Happy now?
Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as the events that will just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible to assert. NDT

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2947
  • Darwins +180/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #357 on: May 23, 2013, 01:09:03 AM »
It's the constant two-step rebuttal that I find compelling - " I don't beleieve, but if God did exists he would/should/ wouldn't/shouldn't etc etc.

If the focus and passion of this forum was solely, or even pre-dominately on God's existence rather than the implications of His existence, I'd probably be far less active.
If all we ever did was say, "No MM, stop being a moron. God isn't real," to everything you said, the conversation would be at an end in just a few posts. We are forced to step into the belief in order to show you how stupid it is from the inside.  Why do you think we are so knowledgeable about the bible and religion?  You have to know what you're arguing against.

Forced? How utterly ridiculous. You choose to participate in a forum which aims to attract Christians, who more often than not only involve themselves in a thread once it is already underway. These threads, of course, oscillate through a very predictable cycle of pointing out the apparent horror of living in the richest land on earth and it's prevalance of religion. Then, once the thread has a Christian participating, somebody plasters images of starving African children across the screen. See any irony in that? Claiming to be victims whilst highighting just how good your lives actually are?

The religious intolerance claim is pretty bloody thin. Some more irony: if you're not high fiving each other for being cycnical enough to paste images of starving kids on the screen, you're bitching and moaning about Christians harrassing gay people, or picketing abortion clinics, or whatever. What does that reflect? Dissatisfaction about somebody's freedom to live as they please being screwed with, right? Right? But what's a broken record argument against the existence of the Christian God on the forum? That suffering is allowed to occur. That He allows people to live as they please.

You are not forced to argue against the existence of God. You want to. You enjoy it.


Your religion is simply a theological position that you find compelling because it's what you were brainwashed to believe. But that position has effectively turned off your reasoning capacity when it comes to questioning it.

Even if that was true, it doesn't begin to explain the most committed Christians I personally know, the ones force fed atheism through school but recognising God despite it.


 How do I know that?  Because you treat the evidence against Gods goodness very differently than you treat the evidence against the goodness of everything else. Need an example? 

Everyone you know says Bill is the greatest guy they have ever met. You meet Bill and the first thing he does is punch you in the balls.  Is Bill the greatest guy?

Everyone you know says God is the greatest being ever. You see children dying in a cancer ward. Is God the greatest being ever?

If you rationalize it away for God and not Bill, then you prove my point. God can opt not to give children cancer, in much the same way that Bill can opt to not punch you in the balls.  Yet we have cancer in kids. Any reasoning you can come up with to explain that in a universe with a benevolent, omnipotent, being fails miserably against the alternative; that there is simply no benevolent, omnipotent being.

Yeah, see my point above. You want freedom, but not if it has negative consequences. This reasoning essentially translates to a stubborn belief that, if you can't see a purpose for something, a purpose cannot exist. It's the partial God problem, again and again. God has power, he can stop the pain. That you get on baord with, to make a point. God knows more than you, and there is a reason for this pain. What? Know more than me? Preposterous!

I don't want to use pain as a tool of debate. I grieve right along with you at the pain in the world. But no way is it's existence evidence against God'd existence.

There are other arguments against God. But they are barely ever discussed. 


Go on up you baldhead.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12278
  • Darwins +272/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #358 on: May 23, 2013, 02:24:22 AM »
Magicmiles, JeffPT said we're forced to do X in order to accomplish Y.  He did not say that we're just outright forced to do X.  The latter strawman is what you chose to so vigorously denounce.  Why'd you do that?
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #359 on: May 23, 2013, 02:48:50 AM »
Thanks MM.


Because a place of eternal punsihment and torment that is as terrible as you describe is entirely disproportionate to any crime or sin that may be committed in a finite earthly life.  Some punishment?  Maybe.  Depends on the crime.  But unremitting torment for ever?  No sir - no loving god could ever create such a place or deem it necessary or appropriate.

You can certainly hold that opinion, and it's one I can sympathise with because I, like you, am only able to understand crime and punishment within the context of this world.

I am certain that the problem lies with our inability to understand God and His absolute right to judge His creation.

See, that's my problem: being unable to understand this "god", and holding to a system of values entirely different to his, means that I am simply unable to support him.  To accept god's value system, it means I must not only discard my own values, but must accept as right a system that I oppose and do not understand.

You might have a whole list of reasons why you think God is wrong and you are right, but you won't get much comfort from them. In fact, I believe you'll get no comfort from them, because when the time comes you'll know you were wrong.

And there's the rub - the implication here is that "when the time comes", I WILL understand, and all my objections will vanish because I suddenly grok what its all about.  But you also suggest that the point at which the truth is revealed to me will be too late - so I must accept something I oppose and do not understand in the hopes that it will be proved right.....despite the fact that currently I think it is all wrong.

Now, that's not to say that, in reality, god does NOT have all the right answers.....but to me it is a major stumbling block for a "good" god that he chooses to ONLY reveal the "why" when it is too late to make a decision based on it.  I cannot sqaure that with "loving".

Bottom line: you firmly believe that the things you do which you know are wrong do not need to be accounted for.

Sorry, when did I say that?  What do I "know is wrong" that I still do?  I do the things I believe to be RIGHT.  If I did the things you tell me god wants me to do, I would be supporting a system I believe to be wrong.  So I don't understand this sentence at all, sorry.


Especially when you examine the criteria for going there, which in the broad is "not accepting Christ". 

A typical abdication of responsibility, and a dismissal of the idea that it is your wrongdoing and rebellion against God that made Christ's death necessary. Mocking Christ, denying Christ even existed.

Muslims all tell me different.  So do Hindus. 

The problem with a believer is that they have the "inside track" on their faith - they are positive it is correct, and cannot understand why someone would not believe.  But to me, from the outside of them all, that last sentence of yours means no more to me NOW than the Muslim telling me that by not making the 5 salaat I am mocking and denying Allah.

If you truly never believed God or turned against Him, you have nothing to worry about.

Splendid news!

So no - I cannot conceive of any reason why a loving god who wants us to be saved would ever have the need to create and eternal, terrible, necessary hell.

Same response again. Only you can know what you truly know. And God.

Indeed.  Same response as I made.  And, it seems, nor can YOU square that circle for me, because your response has not to be "well, it's right because ....." and detail in full all the reasons I am wrong.  Rather, your response was that we cannot understand, but just hope we've picked right.  The only justification for hell I have picked out is "god id god, and might is right" rather than to fully explain the ethical system by which a loving god maintains an eternal hell for (apparently) trivial crimes.
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2947
  • Darwins +180/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #360 on: May 23, 2013, 02:57:22 AM »
Magicmiles, JeffPT said we're forced to do X in order to accomplish Y.  He did not say that we're just outright forced to do X.  The latter strawman is what you chose to so vigorously denounce.  Why'd you do that?

I thought it was clear I was disputing the need for Y.
Go on up you baldhead.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12278
  • Darwins +272/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #361 on: May 23, 2013, 03:00:38 AM »
So in other words, you don't dispute what he actually said in the quote you were replying to.

Glad we agree you were making a strawman.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2947
  • Darwins +180/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #362 on: May 23, 2013, 03:08:12 AM »
Isn't telling someone "in other words" a kind of strawman of it's own?

No, not in other words. In my words. My words dispute Jeff's assertion.
Go on up you baldhead.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12278
  • Darwins +272/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #363 on: May 23, 2013, 03:10:33 AM »
Isn't telling someone "in other words" a kind of strawman of it's own?

Not if, as in this case, it's true.

No, not in other words. In my words. My words dispute Jeff's assertion.

Now you're just lying.  Your response had nothing to do with what Jeff was even talking about.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2947
  • Darwins +180/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #364 on: May 23, 2013, 03:11:31 AM »
Hang on: do you mean I don't dispute the literal words he used? If so, then of course not. But I don't see any strawman in my reply.
Go on up you baldhead.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12278
  • Darwins +272/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #365 on: May 23, 2013, 03:15:55 AM »
Well, of course you dispute what he didn't actually say in the text you were responding to.  That's what a strawman is.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2947
  • Darwins +180/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #366 on: May 23, 2013, 03:20:41 AM »

No, not in other words. In my words. My words dispute Jeff's assertion.

Now you're just lying.  Your response had nothing to do with what Jeff was even talking about.

Yes it did. Perhaps you just can't see it. I'll wait and see what Jeff thinks, in any event.
Go on up you baldhead.

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #367 on: May 23, 2013, 04:56:46 AM »
Just to pick up on two bits here....

That He allows people to live as they please.

For one one-billionth of their (alleged) total existence, yes.  Are you telling me that for my eternal spiritual life I will be allowed to live as I please?  Or is it in fact the case that your god will (in the worst case) dictate what happens to me for the remaining 999,999,999-billionths of my existence?

If I went to heaven, would I be allowed to live there as I pleased?

You are not forced to argue against the existence of God. You want to. You enjoy it.

I would be lying if I said I did not enjoy the intellectual cut-and-thrust of debate.  And I agree that nobody is holding a gun to my head and forcing me to come to this site. 

But I could be gaining just as much intellectual please from arguing about wargames, or books, or whatever.  The fact is that I choose to argue against the existence of god (on this site, and in real life) because I honestly believe it does not exist; because I honestly feel that the results of belief are often bad for the individual; and because I honestly believe that the results of belief are a net "bad" for the world as a whole.

So no - not forced - or at least no more so than any believer who comes here to argue for the other side.
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline Ron Jeremy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 524
  • Darwins +60/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #368 on: May 23, 2013, 07:04:41 AM »
As an add on to Anfauglir's post and point about freedom in heaven, what if a theist arrived there and after a few thousand years found they hated it; could they leave?
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - An example of a clearly demonstrably false biblical 'prophesy'.

The biblical myth of a 6000 year old Earth is proven false by the Gaia satellite directly measuring star age.

Offline Tonus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 195
  • Darwins +28/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
    • Stuff I draw
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #369 on: May 23, 2013, 09:42:23 AM »
Again, following Christ isn't for you - it seems to me that in the gospels when a miracle of Jesus is described with more than just a passing remark, the person's faith precedes the event and not visa versa - miracles were done in response to faith (Mt8:2, Mt9:28) and not to generate faith.  If Jesus performed his miracles to induce a faith response then what do you make of Mt13:58 and 16:4?

There are many examples of people putting faith in Jesus before he performs miracles, but there are many examples of the opposite, as well.

In Matthew 8:23-27 Jesus calms a stormy sea because the disciples lacked faith, for which he admonishes them.  In Matthew 9:2-8 he heals a paralytic in response to the lack of faith of the pharisees, and the crowd praises god after he performs the miracle.  He then raises a girl from the dead.  The girl's father had faith that Jesus could do this, but the crowds that mourned the girl mocked Jesus until he performed the miracle.

In Matthew 11 he performs many miracles in response to John the Baptist's curious question ("are you the one who is to come, or should we expect another?").  In Matthew 14, Jesus grants Peter the ability to walk on water in response to his doubt that it is Jesus who approaches them in the same manner.  Yet the miracle isn't enough to bolster Peter's faith, and he begins to sink.  He again calms a stormy sea and the disciples marvel at this.

There are many similar events in the other gospels, and they are interspersed with events where people showed faith in Jesus before he performed miracles.  Thus, faith does not seem to have been a requirement, and Jesus was willing to perform miracles both to give people faith and in response to their faith.  That may or may not conflict with Matthew 13:58 and 16:4, though (I don't think it necessarily does).

Offline jtk73

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 154
  • Darwins +13/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #370 on: May 23, 2013, 10:32:08 AM »
You know, every once in a while I argue with my dad over the truth value of evolutionary claims.  My dad likes to say: "show me some clear and unmistakeable evidence; show me a monkey turning into a man; show me...". The answer, as I have pointed out is that sometimes if you want to discover the truth you have to do a little work - sucks doesn't it?  Incidentally, do you really think that if the evidence was "clear", we as humans would be unable to find something to disagree about?

Not really a fair comparison. Evolution has a plethora of evidence. Items that you can actually see and touch. Gods have....books (or rather a collection of books and letters). The truth is if someone wanted to research evolution to decide if they could accept it there is a multitude of data that they could examine. If someone wants to research a god to decide if they could accept it, there is ...... a book.

When you say a little work...what exactly do you mean? What is the cut-off? When is it okay to say "Well, I have looked into this and researched this and I still don't find any truths or insights."? Days? Weeks? Months? Years? My guess is that your answer would be "Just keep looking." That doesn't sound like a 'little' work.

If this god is unlimited in power and this truth is the most important truth ever, shouldn't it be easily accessible to every individual? (Just to clarify here - I don't consider having to sift through an incoherent, rambling, inconsistent collection of books in order to find the most important message to be even remotely easy.)

Another problem with your comparison - I accept evolution. If evolution is proven to be completely wrong this afternoon, I would be extremely surprised and very interested but I would go on about my day. I do not accept that there are any gods. If there is a god that wants me to acknowledge it's existence or it will torture me - that's pretty damn important to know. At the very least, I expect that god (assuming that it is the tiniest bit fair) to give me some definitive and meaningful insight into it's existence. Is that really too much to expect from an all-powerful being?

Offline jtk73

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 154
  • Darwins +13/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #371 on: May 23, 2013, 11:29:28 AM »
Imagine standing at the edge of an abyss, with the ground around you giving way. You need to cross that abyss. There is only one way, a very narrow bridge. Why this stupid narrow bridge?, you think. Why isn't there a gold plated travelator? Why does this abyss even exist? Stuff it. I'd rather go into the abyss, content in my own superior reasoning.

Here is the problem. Various religious texts and the religious followers of those texts keep telling everyone that there is an abyss. But the abyss appears to be invisible. We don't find any evidence for this abyss. We take a step forward and when we don't fall off into this abyss, the religious follower simply says - "You lucked out that time. You barely had enough solid ground to take that step but the next one...watch out." I don't ask "Why this stupid narrow bridge?" I ask "Where is this abyss that you keep going on about?".

Quote
You might have a whole list of reasons why you think God is wrong and you are right, but you won't get much comfort from them. In fact, I believe you'll get no comfort from them, because when the time comes you'll know you were wrong.

I expect a god to be smarter and wiser that me - at least a tiny bit. Is that really too much to ask? When the god described is no more intelligent than the peoples that it allegedly first revealed itself to...I don't really consider that worthy of recognition or acknowledgement.

Quote
You have been told, repeatedly, that they do need to be accounted for, and will be. With Jesus, they have been.
Great. Then why are we even here discussing this? My horrible crime of a 15 second sexual fantasy this morning has been atoned for. You keep talking like you and all of us just walk around daily telling nasty lies, defecating on people's front lawns, swearing like sailors and punching babies in the face.

Here is what I did yesterday. I woke up, showered, shaved, got some juice and cereal for my son, ate some breakfast, fed the pets, drove to work, did some work with lunch and bathroom breaks in there somewhere, drove home, played with my son and talked with my wife, watched some television, ate supper and went to sleep.

Aside from not glorifying God's name every 15 seconds (plus not believing that he exists) and ogling a woman in a tight shirt at the grocery store, what "horrible" things did I do that deserve punishment, much less eternal torture?

This is what is absolutely ridiculous about Christianity. No matter how good of a life I live. Even if I began believing in and worshiping God (either truthfully or by convincing myself). It would never be good enough. Never lying (even to spare someones feelings), no bad or hurtful thoughts, etc. It would never be enough. That is the horrible lie of Christianity. "You are a horrible, disgusting, worthless piece of garbage. God is going to punish you unless you repent....for being human. P.S. God loves you."

Quote
You reject that. That is your choice.
Oh...so Jesus' sacrifice wasn't enough? He and his father? self? want recognition for it? That seems very needy (a human attribute).

Quote
It's my choice to heed that, because I know in my heart that God exists, and He has the right to punish wrongdoing as He pleases. Non-communicable, yes. (my belief). But I've said that over and over.
So the sacrifice was completely pointless? God is still going to punish for these "horrible" crimes? Then why have the sacrifice at all? *Also I noticed that you indicated that God takes pleasure in punishing.

Offline Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1784
  • Darwins +191/-7
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #372 on: May 23, 2013, 11:45:39 AM »
According to the new pope, none of this matters anyway - we atheists get into heaven along with the christians as long as we do good works.

Whodathunkit? All this time my intention was to do good works because they need doing, but this guy says even I can get into heaven with him and his buddies. I wonder if there is a way out of it though... I'd hate to have to reconsider my education and career plans to avoid spending eternity with biblegod - he's a right bastard and I can't imagine sitting worshipfully by while he continues his neglectful behavior.

If I'm going after the federal government for their disgusting neglect of our veterans, god sure as hell isn't going to shut me up.
"It's hard to, but I'm starting to believe some of you actually believe these things.  That is completely beyond my ability to understand if that is really the case, but things never cease to amaze me."

Offline JeffPT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2061
  • Darwins +221/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm a lead farmer mutha fucka
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #373 on: May 23, 2013, 12:53:55 PM »
Forced? How utterly ridiculous. You choose to participate in a forum which aims to attract Christians, who more often than not only involve themselves in a thread once it is already underway.

I said that in order to argue effectively against you, I am forced to step inside of your argument.  Not once did I say I am forced to come here.  You were mistaken. 

These threads, of course, oscillate through a very predictable cycle of pointing out the apparent horror of living in the richest land on earth and it's prevalance of religion. Then, once the thread has a Christian participating, somebody plasters images of starving African children across the screen. See any irony in that? Claiming to be victims whilst highighting just how good your lives actually are?
I never said that my life was bad.  In fact, I live a great life.  A wonderful life.  In spite of the religious fucktards that I am surrounded by in the bible belt, I've managed to carve out a pretty good existence all on my own, and as long as I remain a semi-closeted atheist (because I fear losing my job to those good, wonderful Christians who might fire me for not believing the same fairy tale as them), I'll continue to live that life. But what sort of ass hat would I be if I based my opinions of the world we lived in without looking at how it is in other nations and in other parts of the world?  Birth geography and hard work got me to where I am now. 

Let me ask you MM... Would you judge someone to be a good person if they treated you like a king, but kicked the shit out of millions of other people for what appears to be no reason at all?  Do you have a problem with me judging that person as bad?  Would it not be the height of selfishness to judge him good? 

The religious intolerance claim is pretty bloody thin. Some more irony: if you're not high fiving each other for being cycnical enough to paste images of starving kids on the screen, you're bitching and moaning about Christians harrassing gay people, or picketing abortion clinics, or whatever. What does that reflect? Dissatisfaction about somebody's freedom to live as they please being screwed with, right? Right? But what's a broken record argument against the existence of the Christian God on the forum? That suffering is allowed to occur. That He allows people to live as they please.

For fucks sake MM, do you even hear what you're saying?  What is the objective difference between a god that doesn't exist and one that 'allows people to live as they please'?  Let me give you a hint... there isn't one.  That's why it's a good argument against the Christian God. 

We bitch and moan, and rightfully so, against the Christians who harass gay people, picket abortion clinics and the like, precisely because of the reasons you said.  The reason people do that stuff is because of their 'belief' in God and their 'belief' that God wants certain things, not because God really exists. 

You are not forced to argue against the existence of God. You want to. You enjoy it.
I never said I was forced to do it.  I made it perfectly clear that the methodology required to effectively argue against the existence of God forces us to argue from the inside, not the outside. 

I believe Christianity and religion are, on the whole, terrible for the world and that is why I think it's important to argue against it.  In that respect, I feel I need to argue against it.  That it's important to argue against it. 

Even if that was true, it doesn't begin to explain the most committed Christians I personally know, the ones force fed atheism through school but recognising God despite it.

LOL!  I think you confuse 'force fed atheism' in schools with 'not teaching Christianity' in schools.  You make it sound like school is the only place where children are taught things.  People get God from church and being indoctrinated into it.  That's why they get to the kids as early as they can.  They don't withhold religious teaching until a child turns 18, and then hand them 5 different religious books and tell them to pick the right one.  If they did that, then nobody would 'recognize God'. 

Yeah, see my point above. You want freedom, but not if it has negative consequences. This reasoning essentially translates to a stubborn belief that, if you can't see a purpose for something, a purpose cannot exist.
I'm not saying that a purpose can't exist, MM.  I'm saying that until I am presented with said purpose, then it is reasonable to judge the events in the same way that I judge the events if I were to witness the same sort of thing in any other context.  For example: if I saw my neighbor playing with his kids in the front yard and having a good time, I might think my neighbor is a good guy.  This is how I judge those sorts of things.  But if I saw my neighbor smashing his child's head in with a baseball bat, I would think my neighbor is a pretty bad guy.  I judge that based on what I think of it.  This is reasonable, is it not?  Should I suspend judgement and think, 'he knows more than I do about his child... maybe I should just assume he has a good reason for doing it.'.  No.  Never. 

But here is the kicker with you religious people.  Every good thing that happens... you think you've got God's purpose all figured out.  Know why?  Because you've created this God character and imbued him with all that is good.  So as soon as you see something good, you use the normal reasoning process (fed through your God belief) to say, 'ah, look what God is doing there.  God is so good'.  But when something bad happens, you don't use that same reasoning process anymore.  You don't say, 'ah, look what God is doing there.  What an ass hole.'  You immediately jump away from the normal way you assess good and bad and you say stupid shit like, 'there might be a purpose we just don't know about.'  Bullshit.  You're completely biasing your judgements that way and you know it. 

Also, the implications of what you're saying are staggering...  What you're saying amounts to... 'childhood cancer might have an ultimate purpose'.  Fine, but if you really believe that, you should be celebrating it!  Cheering in the streets for cancer!  Yay Cancer!  But you don't, do you?  You think it's bad, right? 

It's the partial God problem, again and again. God has power, he can stop the pain. That you get on baord with, to make a point. God knows more than you, and there is a reason for this pain. What? Know more than me? Preposterous!
The other possibility, MM, is that you're completely fucking wrong, and good and bad things happen all the time because there is no God overseeing it. Please tell me where that goes wrong for you logically? 

I don't want to use pain as a tool of debate. I grieve right along with you at the pain in the world. But no way is it's existence evidence against God'd existence.

Only in the world of the believer, MM.  Only in the world of the believer.  That's the effects of the brainwashing. 

There are other arguments against God. But they are barely ever discussed.

You don't look at other threads too much, do you? 
Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as the events that will just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible to assert. NDT

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6680
  • Darwins +888/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #374 on: May 23, 2013, 03:08:09 PM »
God knows that many people are worshipping the wrong gods, or not worshipping any gods at all. He also knows exactly what evidence would convince every person on the earth to believe in the correct god.

He clearly knows what it would take to convince each atheist on this board to believe in the correct god. We often have threads where we discuss among ourselves what kind of evidence we would like to see. God could log in and read. But god, for reasons not clear to anyone, chooses not to present that evidence, thus dooming many, many people to hell.

Why, lookee here! This is one of those very threads!

God acts like the parent of a group of sick children, holding the cure for their illness, but refusing to give the medicine to the kids. And never giving a reason why they were not able to give the cure. All the while claiming to love the suffering, sick children and saying that if only they were good enough, they would be able to get the medicine from somewhere. Watching as the kids search the entire house looking for the medicine. And weeping over the plight of the poor misguided kids.

If that is the behavior of a "good" being, I would hate to see what a "bad" being would do. Anytime we try to match god's supposed behavior with anything a reasonable human would expect, god comes up way short. God's morality is not human morality--except that of a few very evil psycho humans. Good thing there aren't many people who act like that god. And good thing that no god being like that really exists.

Thank our lucky stars.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2947
  • Darwins +180/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #375 on: May 23, 2013, 05:30:52 PM »
I'll catch up on this thread sometime over the weekend hopefully.
Go on up you baldhead.

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #376 on: May 24, 2013, 10:57:27 AM »
Again, following Christ isn't for you - it seems to me that in the gospels when a miracle of Jesus is described with more than just a passing remark, the person's faith precedes the event and not visa versa - miracles were done in response to faith (Mt8:2, Mt9:28) and not to generate faith. 

Not true. There are plenty of counterexamples to this - one of them being Thomas - but even if your claim about 'belief before site' were true here you've already admitted that even if you were shown that your theology was completely bunk, and/or all of your arguments for Yahweh failed, you would still believe based upon your alleged 'non-communicable' experience. Now why should we even waste our time having a discussion with you when you suffer from such closed-mindedness? You've basically been exposed as a troll here - in that there isn't anything that could change your view. Your mind is cemented-in to this supposed experience you think you've had and, clearly, no one can convince you otherwise (even in spite of all counter-examples, contrary evidence, and contradiction). How dishonest!

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan